An Entrepreneurial Wild-West in the East

I recently returned from my first trip to China.  My crowded business schedule included meeting investors and strategic partners in Shanghai and Nanjing.  As a frequent traveler I thought this was just a matter of hopping on a flight.  During my preparations it became clear that this was a different kind of trip.

I am fortunate that my business and LinkedIn networks include a number of well placed and helpful Chinese nationals.  Board members Louisa and Raymand of the Greater Cincinnati Chinese Chamber of Commerce shortened the cognitive distance to China.  The host, OnGreen, made the trip more smooth than if left to my own devices.  In all cases, they told me to be prepared for a significant experience.  Yeah, right.

My China experience began from the airplane window portal before landing in Shanghai.  Looking down at the harbor I saw a giant conveyor belt of container ships headed to sea.  That almost prepared me for the airport.

The airport is huge.  I have never seen such an airport, both in size and cleanliness.  I guess that is why it did not seem crowded.

Heading to the taxi stand I sensed an increase in the entrepreneurial temperature.   After a taxi service tried to hustle me, I secured a ride.  I used the opportunity to see Shanghai.  Until my memory fades, I shall not willingly forget that ride.

As a result of my trip, I took 500 photos from my mobile phone.  I do not remember the last time I took so many pictures.  I rely on postcards.  That collection increased too.

The round trip Shanghai / Nanjing bullet train inspired awe.  Since I took a great cross-country Amtrak trip with my son a couple of years ago, I inevitably compared the two.  After taking my son out of the equation there was no comparison.  Every aspect of that train reinforced my believe that the US could do much better – if entrepreneurs could be empowered to make it so (I believe micro-train grids are the way to start).

Though the train ride from San Francisco to San Jose I took earlier this year was uneventful and did the job, it did not inspire me with comfort and speed.  The Shanghai to Nanjing Express silently hit speeds over 300 kilometers per hour.  The only way I could tell it was moving so fast was my inability to focus on the posts zipping by my window – were they wood or metal – I will likely never know.

During my visit I did not encounter a single rude individual.  Not one person amongst my Marriott stay, taxi, train, and ferry rides was rude; not a one.  It reminded me of the US midwest.  The difference being that in China everyone seems to be Charlie-hustle.  If I could bet on China I would certainly put my money on continued economic growth.

No place is perfect.  I am sure China has its issues.  I have no idea about political and social institutions.  I only saw one police car during my visit and I have no idea about the laws, judiciary, law-makers, and the like.  I also have no litmus on the health-care system.

Regarding the educational system, a couple of our team members are from China.  Bilian Song, PhD and Shengchang Su, PhD are great ambassadors of the educational system and China in general.  They were also instrumental in my preparations for the trip.  Their translation of investment and technical documents were critical components for the success of the trip.

The Shanghai streets are clean because they hose them down each night.  A homeless guy sleeping on a street bench was “rudely” awaken by the cold spray of a two-man hose team.

Zipping along on the pothole-free new roads or on the smooth rail, everywhere I looked, there were construction cranes in the sky above green cloth shrouded high-rise buildings.  I almost never saw any workers though.  I saw many new buildings, but in most cases, I could see right through the building because it lacked occupants.

The investors, Government officials, and strategic partners are open in their seeking technology innovators.  They collectively believe that innovation will continue the upward growth curve.  Perhaps getting innovators to build their companies in China will seed their entrepreneurial culture with innovation?  If they are able to couple a home-grown innovating culture with their work hard ethic and great customer service, their economic growth will be sustainable.  I wonder how Max Weber would evaluate this hybrid political and economic system?

Though I was mentally prepared to have a significant experience, I really had no appreciation for the scale.  I was humbled and impressed.  As an entrepreneur, the business climate is invigorating.  I felt like a kid with a limitless credit account in a candy store.  Everyone hustles and works.  It is an American-style wild-west opportunity.

The relationship building is early.  It was a great first impression.  I am excited at the prospect of returning to China and continuing my Nixon-esque learning.  And if things go well I hope to contribute to the innovation component of the burgeoning entrepreneurial culture in China.

Statement about the Water-Energy Nexus Report

Pilus Energy Supports The Water-Energy Nexus:  Adding Water to the Energy Agenda World Policy Paper

A printable version of this release is available here.

We at Pilus Energy support the seminal report, The Water-Energy Nexus:  Adding Water to the Energy Agenda (Glassman, Diana and Wucker, Michele; March 2011).  The report is located at:

http://www.worldpolicy.org/policy-paper/2011/03/18/water-energy-nexus.

The report highlights that the second largest consumer of water behind agriculture, is energy production.  At the same time, the largest consumer of energy is water treatment and delivery.  As the report suggests, water issues should be included in all energy discussions.  Conversely, when policy-makers and business leaders are discussing water issues, energy should be included.  According to the report’s authors,

The competition between water and energy needs represents a critical business, security, and environmental issue, but has not yet received the attention that it merits. Energy production consumes significant amounts of water; providing water, in turn, consumes energy. In a world where water scarcity is a major and growing challenge, meeting future energy needs depends on water availability –and meeting water needs depends on wise energy policy decisions.

Pilus Energy is acutely aware of the Water-Energy nexus.  The Company’s electrogenic bioreactor (EBR) technology platform is designed to address both water and energy issues simultaneously.  However, the EBR adds a third component making the nexus a triad.  While remediating wastewater, the EBR generates electricity and produces economically important biogases like hydrogen, methane, and isoprene.

All three domains are linked with a single solution - the Electrogenic Bioreactor (EBR) technology platform

This Water-Energy Nexus report is a critical component of the water policy and business discussion.  As a decision-making tool, it provides a framework for linking water and energy issues that are intertwined and interdependent.  Pilus Energy supports the adoption of this report as a foundation for the water, energy, and waste-to-value triad.

As a scalable and turnkey waste-to-value platform, modules can be added to the EBR to increase functions and add even more additional values.  As a convergent technology platform, it can operate in temperatures that range from under 10 degrees Celsius (C) to over 40 degrees C.  This robust technology resists changes in pH, heavy metal contaminates, and pathogens that would shut down more sensitive solutions.  As such, it reduces costs and management requirements.

Death, Destruction, and Renewal

Everyday I look into my kaleidoscope. My visual and auditory senses receive a dose of information. Since I keep an eye to the competitive landscape, I read about emerging developments in clean energy, biotech, and wastes-to-value. However, far too often my reading is infiltrated with stories that overwhelm my mind with sadness. In Japan the aftermath of a natural adjustment to the plates that serve as the foundation upon which our cities are anchored extinguished lives. The long-term impacts will take years to fully understand. New Zealand suffered a Japan-like earthquake a few months earlier. Australia is still recovering from it’s devastating watery deluge. And the list just grows.

In the Middle East, against the continued instability rooted in terrorism, we see the attempts of liberty to escape the shackles of tyranny. In the Ivory Coast we see a repeat of the worn out storyline of a megalomaniac’s addiction to power. It is one thing when nature creates the circumstance. It is yet quite a repugnant reflection when it is human inflicted.

Regardless, whether a natural or human cause of lost life, a book of experience is extinguished forever from our consciousness.

Our firm is maturing similar to the peaks and valleys of an emerging tweener. Our team members are not impervious to the experience of tragic losses that come with life. Recently, two members of our team experienced just such personal losses. Since everyone in a startup is critical, a diverted focus by a member can significantly impact the development of the Company. When it is two members, it can debilitate the growth. As a leader, one might feel compelled to balance the needs of the individual team members with the needs of the collective organization. However, a balance between these two needs is not the real dilemma. Making such a diagnosis may be superficial. Rather, the leadership challenge is mustering the empathy and resources to support the members.

Each of our directly impacted team members found a way to embrace their emotional experiences while continuing to support the Company. Organizationally, we could have responded better. The separation of the team members by time zones and geography underpins a virtual company. The Company is more resilient. But is it less human – or is it an evolution of humanity to a less personal collective? Will humanity’s use of electrons become a medium of quorum sensing?

Questions aside, this institutional change of humanity should make other changes to the Company easier. The days may be on the horizon where the business focus takes primacy over the science and engineering. The ethos and culture of the Company may change from being lever inventors, to lever pullers. A mature company’s leadership may take the view dictated by quarterly earnings. That is to say, from being entrepreneurial to operating. Is Google trying to revert back to this humanity with Brin, Page, and Schmidt changing their roles?

As goals of the organization begin to focus more strongly upon generating revenues, the Company must attract team members with such a focus. Change in of itself may have little value. Change when it is adapting to an environment, or when it is reflecting execution of a strategic plan to achieve growth, requires leadership best suited for that time in space.

Maybe a solution for morphing my kaleidoscope is a feature on my RSS aggregator that enables the selection of only positive revenue-generating stories?

Raw and Pitch-Forked

During a series of trips (“road show”) presenting to investors in the USA and Europe, I was horrified at the lack of polish by some of my colleagues. At first blush, one might think this reduces competition for investment and I should stop whining. The reality is just the opposite. If the cleantech energy and water space does not put forth polished entrepreneurs, the entire space may be deemed to early and immature for serious investors. Early stage, pre-revenue firms like my own need the industry too get through its teenage years very quickly. Only when our industry is more mature, will those investors sitting on the sidelines, invest into higher risk, pre-revenue firms. Some might say, so what of the chasm between pre- and post-revenue-generating firms as the differentiator for investment? After all, that is the market at work.

The problem with this chasm between pre- and post-revenue investment is significant because many advances to clean energy and water are overlooked. With the lack of clean water and energy as it is, the very condition of humanity may be at stake.

The global community can ill afford to wait for our industry to clean and polish itself. A state of urgency must drive entrepreneurs to mature our industry more quickly. Failing to bring cleantech energy and water solutions to the world will result in species extinctions. It will result in war and famine.

Asking investors, governments, and larger companies to take the capital risk is not the answer. Before one can ask them to take the risk, we entrepreneurs need to bring that clean into our polish.

As a result of sitting through pitches that caused me to cringe for our nascent clean energy and water industries, I wondered about what could be done to help my colleagues in spite of their not asking?

My reflection galvanized the three critical components that I think early cleantech entrepreneurs must have to help them, and our industry, forward. Of course a lot more is required than just three principles. However, by focusing on just the following three, an entrepreneur will encapsulate almost everything required to successfully raise capital and grow a company. Before expressing my three critical requirements, a bit of background on the pitching process.

Pitching is generally a formal ten-minute presentation to an audience. Those in the audience are investors or influence investors. Usually the selection to pitch in a forum is by competitive selection. This process generally requires an application and a briefing to a judging panel. If the entrepreneurial story is solid enough, the firm gains a coveted pitching spot.

The pitch forum is fast paced. It requires the message to be clear and concise. It requires your use of technology. And it requires planning, rehearsal, refinement, and rehearsal again.

Selling

First and most importantly is the ability to sell. To lead a firm one must lead sales and understand its relationship to revenues. If you cannot “sell” your Company to investors, you are likely unable to sell products to customers. Therefore, pitching is a referendum on the entrepreneur’s sales abilities. Piss-poor-planning for a pitch means the entrepreneur will likely result in a piss-poor pitch. If the entrepreneur does not plan for a pitch, planning for sales is unlikely. Since investors are looking to put their capital to work in as little risk as possible, one can make a correlation between poor planning, poor execution, and higher risk.

As part of my continuous entrepreneurial professional development plan, I read books and journal articles about sales and its processes. I also talk to successful and unsuccessful sales people. Sales is a lot more than articulating a value proposition. The more one knows about the art and science of sales, the more likely an entrepreneur will successfully sell equity in the firm. Confidence during the pitch if it is approached as a sales process should materialize. This confidence links sales to the next critical component.

Books that I rely upon include:

Crossing the Chasm; Geoffrey A. Moore, 1991; revised 2001

The 25 Sales Habits of Highly Successful Salespeople; Stephan Schiffman,3rd Ed, 2008

The Language of Trust: Selling Ideas in a World of Skeptics; Michael Maslansky, 2010

Leadership

The second aspect for successful pitching is expressing leadership through knowledge, planning, communication, and adaptability. A superb planner who is able to listen and adapt to changes during execution brings confidence to the organization and investors. Just as pitching demonstrates salesmanship, having knowledge, planning, communication, and adaptability demonstrates leadership and management skills.

My favorite recommendations for leadership development are:

Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion; Robert B. Cialdini, PhD, 2007

The Killer Angels; Michael Shaara, 1974 (particularly the actions by Joshua Chamberlain)

Founders at Work: Stories of Startups’ Early Days; Jessica Livingston, 2007

Failure to plan requires the entrepreneur to plan for failure. The savvy investor sees this risk and avoids it. This leads me to the final critical aspect a pitching entrepreneur must have.

Trading Places

An entrepreneur must trade places with the investor. Good leaders are great followers. The only way an entrepreneur who is a leader can fully appreciate and understand the investor, is to walk in that shadow. That is to say, become the investor. Placing oneself in the investor’s position requires the entrepreneur to completely understand what an investor needs in order to put capital to work, and at risk. Trading places with an investor means you need a mentor, read books about investing, and go through the process of being an investor. The funny thing is that after such an exercise, not only will you better position your sales pitch, but you become a bit more understanding when an investor passes on your opportunity. You will likely appreciate the feedback much more too.

My recommending reading list for becoming an investor are:

Angel Investing: Matching Startup Funds with Startup Companies – The Guide for Entrepreneurs and Individual Investors>; Mark Van Osnabrugge and Robert J. Robinson, 2000

Investing in Renewable Energy: Making Money on Green Chip Stocks; Jeff Siegel, 2008

Mastering the VC Game: A Venture Capital Insider Reveals How to Get from Start-up to IPO on Your Own Terms; Jeffrey Bussgang, 2010

With these three important and overarching principles in place, the entrepreneur should be more successful. At the same time, s/he will bring credit and legitimacy to the cleantech energy and water space.

Pitching requires continual improvement. Improvement is facilitated by reflection and assessment. The cleantech industry requires the entrepreneur to be a professional, not just a technologist.

Books I recommend for polishing the pitch are:

Fascinate: Your 7 Triggers to Persuasion and Captivation; Sally Hogshead, 2010

The Art of the Start: The Time-Tested, Battle-Hardened Guide for Anyone Starting Anything; Guy Kawasaki, 2004

Rainmaking Presentations: How to Grow Your Business by Leveraging Your Expertise; Joseph Sommerville, 2009

And an extra:

Harvard Business Review on Innovation; 2001

The “Steve Jobs” Take-Away

Last week was a love fest.  The enigmatic CEO of Apple Computer announced a medical leave.  The announcement’s timing was a lesson in share price management.  As a shareholder since the ’80s, I appreciated the consideration.

In the background of cleantech energy musings, wastewater research, and business model refinement, I passively listened to a prominent financial news network.  I was thankful the network turned its attention to Mr. Hu Jintao, the Chinese President and his official State visit to the White House.  Not because I do not like Steve Jobs, rather because it freed up my mind to consider the legacy of Steve Jobs.  More importantly, to determine the most important take-away from his tenure.

I remember my visit to the Apple Store on its opening day in Cincinnati a few years ago.  The local computer experts, like many of their computer brethren, had already declared Apple Computer dead.  Many relegated it to, at best, a footnote below the Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) epitaph.  As one fellow explained to me, “at least DEC died an honorable death.” Apple continued to linger on life-support in an ungraceful way.  If Gateway could not get retail stores to work, a company with an operating system outside the mainstream and more expensive hardware would never be successful.

Before the Apple Stores, I, and a few others, believed there was room in the computing market for end-user controlled distributed computing.  It was true that decision-making power of computer adoption was centralized in enterprises.  The business brilliance of Bill Gates was building Microsoft’s business around empowering system administrators.  I frequently wondered about the Microsoft investment in Apple some years later.  Had that not occurred, the life support might have terminated.

Twelve-years ago I read the nearly six-hundred page book, “Infinite Loop: How Apple, the World’s Most Insanely Great Computer Company, Went Insane” by Michael S. Malone (1999).  It still has a spot in my paper-based library. It is an important reminder to the power of entrepreneurial persistence.

In a few moments of reflection against the backdrop of the parading expert analysts on my favorite financial news network, no one addressed Steve Jobs incredible perseverance.  My image of Steve Jobs is memorialized as an Indiana Jones moment.  From atop a dusty and desolate cliff, Indy aims a rocket launcher at the Ark in a threat to destroy it.  His artifact-looting nemesis is leading the Ark to a ceremony to unleash and capture the Ark’s stored power.  Indy’s adversary comments that Indy “is going to give mercenaries a bad name” because of his dogged persistence.  Similarly, Steve’s dedication provides a tremendous leadership learning opportunity.

For years Steve was at least ignored, frequently vilified, and certainly compared to the leader of a cult who might lead his lunatic followers to an untimely end.

Then along came the halo effect.  With it, the cult leader is transformed into a budding angel.  Notice I did not even mention the iPod/iTunes ecosystem and you knew what created the halo.  This product and Company kept investors excited.  The NASDAQ survived.

When Steve hangs up his spurs, I hope his legacy is a lighthouse beacon to entrepreneurs.  His commitment to empowering personal computing is only matched by his motivation and business acumen.  As a leadership template, one must stay the course, even when the surrounding analysts and experts predict your failure.  Staying the course means continually learning and improving. Stubbornness with adaptable vision is a necessary condition to entrepreneurialism.

Cleantech energy and water production is capital intensive.  It requires visionary early adopters and partners.  How long one endures the snickers behind slammed doors determines your fortitude – the strength of your Steve Jobs mojo.

Black Gold and White Diamonds

Most of us are familiar with liquid crude oil either from spills or fires (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Oil "Black Gold"

Modern industrialization was enabled by unlocking the energy stored in it. Opposite the liquid black gold are gases. I am not referring to industrial gases used in many chemical processes. Rather, I am interested in gases that could provide usable energy. Specifically, gases generated biologically can have very low production and distribution costs. As a result, cleantech energy production leadership might fall to invisible biogases.

The oxygen in our atmosphere is likely the result of microbiota activity. That means the oxygen most of us breath is a biogas. The cost to produce that oxygen gas was zero. The same might be said of nitrogen which is required for plant life.

Warren Weisman reports that China already has 50 million homes using biogas. He claims India has more than 4 million biogas plants.

According to TheBioenergySite, the China Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) predicted that by the end of 2010, over 30% of the China energy production was met by biogas use.

In November 2010, according to FuelCell Energy, Inc. the City of San Diego adopted fuel cells receiving piped biogases produced at waste facilities. They call this “directed biogas” production. In this system the energy “power plant will be fueled by renewable biogas generated at a distant location” and piped to the fuel cells. Accordingly, the City is expecting to make more than $2MM USD from this deployment within 10 years.

The hydrocarbon “natural gas” is already piped into many facilities as feedstock for furnaces and boilers. That gas is a mixture of hydrocarbons that resulted from, you guessed it, biological processes.

The maligned hydrogen gas has significant potential. Technology issues, and a misunderstanding in the United States, have kept hydrogen in the shadows.

The Hindenburg left an imprint on the American psyche. The pictures and video of the large transportation vehicle burning, killing many in the air and on the ground, is recognizable by many Americans. The appointed culprit was hydrogen.

Had the hydrogen ignited, there would not be the famous picture as the dirigible would have vaporized. It is still debated what role hydrogen played in the demise of the Hindenburg. I have nothing to add to that debate. My concern is the long-lasting avoidance the American society has to hydrogen.

Hydrogen is the ultimate cleantech energy feedstock. However, hydrogen Fuel Cells have a bad name with many investors because they have not lived up to their promised potential. I believe this is because of the costs associated with centralized hydrogen production and the transportation supply chain to the fuel cells. In such a process the hydrogen gains impurities. Impurities cause problems with fuel cells.

Bertel Schmitt (01 January 2011) graphic suggests this model (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Hydrogen Supply and Demand Model

His model is elegant. I agree with him that hydrogen is reviving. However, I suggest the distributed, de-centralized biogas production of hydrogen is missing from the supply-side of the model.

If the hydrogen production were decentralized and co-located with the fuel cell, the impurity issue could be solved. So, what might a great distributed hydrogen production solution look like? I suggest hydrogen produced through biological processes using wastes as feedstock.

It is no surprise the German automaker, Mercedes-Benz recently delivered their first retail hydrogen fuel cell automobile. Germany has a long history with successful hydrogen deployment starting with dirigibles like the Hindenburg and Zeppelins. Though America has a hydrogen aversion, Germany has mastered the attraction. And now it seems, Toyota will have mass produced fuel cell cars by 2015.

The world’s two most populated countries are rapidly adopting biogas-based energy solutions. The Europeans are embracing hydrogen. Meanwhile, subsidized wind and solar still garner the vast majority of publicity for cleantech energy production in the USA.

I suspect biogases like hydrogen will increase their footprint. Perhaps the day is near that a fuel cell is installed in your home and the wastes generated in the home provide the hydrogen to the fuel cell for generating the required electricity? As biogases continue to grow in importance, hydrogen might be the invisible white diamond (Figure 3) that will power the next industrial boom.

Figure 3: The Hydrogen "White Diamond"

The Double-Conundrum

The Double-Conundrum of Competing Demands

 

Amidst exciting times, so enters 2011.  It is easy to focus on the positive events surrounding us.  And it is even easier to focus on the negative.  Fortunately for me, I prefer to focus on neither of these.  I would rather spend my time daydreaming about inventive creations.  Then philosophizing about how such daydreams might impact the world or universe.

For example, developing cures for cancers is important.  However, it is just as critical to focus on preventing cancers from developing.  Just treating the cancer after the fact simply means that if there is an underlying genetic etiology, it may be passed on to the next generation.  I am all for curing cancer.  Let it be done at the causative level, not at the treatment level.

It should be clear that I prefer to see preventive practices put in place.  Reaction to problems is far more expensive and disruptive than preventing them.  Technologies lag even the best intentions.  The technologies are not in place to prevent cancers from starting.  That leaves us with treating them.

This creates the double-conundrum; prevention and treatment are inextricably linked (Figure 1).  If you have limited resources do you put them into the short-term reward of treatment, or do you delay the immediate gain (perhaps saving a life), and put the resources toward prevention research?  Here in Cincinnati, Ohio, there is was a stressful debate about the nature of the City’s budget and the opposing pull of funding needs.  This debate is couched in the age-old argument of cutting services or raising taxes in the face of a single-source of funds.

Figure 1: The Double-Conundrum of Two Different Paths to a Solution

Many of the developed economies are accustomed to servicing the double-conundrum simultaneously.  Through debate, like in Cincinnati, a solution emerges.  Frequently, this extends the timeline for solving the underlying etiology of the problem.  The argument usually focuses on the distribution of capital between the two efforts (Figure 2).  As an example, health-care research and development is capital and time intensive, and is usually publicly funded.  As soon as servicing the double-conundrum requires public funding, it becomes a political issue.  The tug-of-war between treatment and prevention spills over into other realms.

Figure 2: Prevention-heavy Solution Path

Figure 3: Treatment-heavy Solution Path

Abortion, arguably, has not direct correlation with cancer treatment.  However, abortion can be distilled to a level of prevention versus treatment.  As such, it shares the double-conundrum.  One angle of the dyad manifests as spending public funds for avoidance and abstinence. The other angle places those limited public funds at dealing with a child.  I suspect it is financially more expensive to responsibly deal with a child than to abort a pregnancy.

At this point I will stop.  Discussing such a sensitive topic about reproductive rights, particularly from a masculine perspective, is probably a minefield that I should avoid – lest I become a double-conundrum.

Many entrepreneurs initially daydream, then develop a plan of action and execute the plan.  Most of us are told to focus on a problem, and then monetize solving it.  If we are really good at telling the story of the problem, the available market, and the plan for solving it, we can usually raise some funding to execute on the plan.  Of course it sounds easier than it is!

My current focus is cleantech energy production.  This is a great example of a capital and time intensive endeavor.  The post-Internet and software funding culture does not have the patience and risk models necessary for cleantech (and cancer) developments that are pre-revenue.

Though as entrepreneurs we might have our vision on what we might want to impact in the world long-term, we are still focused on the short-term return on investment (ROI).  If governments and markets are unable to provide the very long-term financial focus on solving underlying problems, what then is the alternative?

This brings me to the efforts of a particular philanthropy….

The double-conundrum solution

I find the efforts of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation fascinating.  I think they struck upon the solution to the double-conundrum.  Because they are somewhat outside the political pressures for the distribution of funds, they are free to focus funds on solutions that require long-term research and development.  The Gates Foundation enables local political systems to focus on the immediate needs of their populations.  This readjustment decreases the political responsibility for long-term, capital and time intensive solutions (Figure 4).

Figure 4: The Double-funding Solution Route Solves the Double-cunundrum.

This is not to say The Foundation is not addressing immediate needs because they are.  Their concerns range from human immune deficiency virus (HIV/AIDS) and malaria treatment and prevention, to clean-water installation and maintenance.  By addressing short-term immediate needs, The Foundation develops the validation and political support that are required for critics to embrace The Foundation’s altruism.

The Foundation brings stability to the political environment in which they operate.  Because the political entity has critical financial and intellectual support, they are generally able to focus on their immediate social needs without sacrificing the long-term research and development required to eradicate underlying problem etiologies.  As a result, social and political systems are more likely to be stable.  This stability should reduce human suffering, terrorism, environmental and habitat degradation, and species extinction.

Human social stability is a necessary condition for enabling long-term geopolitical, environmental, and habitat protection.  In fact, every aspect of human life on planet Earth should be positively impacted by their efforts.  That is why I think they have successfully encouraged many other well-known (and not so well known) philanthropists to join their effort.  It is amongst the greatest global endeavors of all time.  Instead of a League of Nations or United Nations, The Foundation is taking the pragmatic approach of removing the double-conundrum from political funding systems.

There are critics tucked away in dark conspiracy corners.  They have their place in this discussion, if only as an accountability factor.

The Foundation is not a new form of government.  Rather, they are a new funding mechanism.  They seem to be an investor with an ROI-focus on societal outcomes, not increases in product revenues.  What angel and venture capital is to entrepreneurial companies, The Foundation is to governments and society at large.

What The Foundation is taking on some of the funding of the prevention dyad, while the social government takes over the immediate, human need of treatment.

What can entrepreneurs and corporations do to support the Foundation’s efforts?  What is the one thing that we can provide The Foundation does not already have?  How about intellectual property (IP)?  This could be a solid way to build corporate value – donate IP licenses that could be used exclusively by The Foundation to assist the solving of long-term problems.

For example, Pilus Energy could provide a non-exclusive license to The Foundation for its electrogenic bioreactor (EBR) technology.  Pilus Energy gains a pilot partner with access to proving grounds.  The Foundation gains a technology they can solve clean water and energy production and distribution problems with.   Further, they can lead deployments in locations with an otherwise insignificant market value to be pursed by a for-profit company. This kind of IP donation model could also bring broadband and mobile services to rural areas.

The ambition and non-partisan approach of The Foundation to independently funding time and capital-intensive solutions gives me goose bumps.

The partnership between Governments, The Foundation, and IP owners could provide an exciting model for solving long-term, capital and time-intensive problems that otherwise might not be solved, at least in a socially stable way.